MENS REA
MR:
‘Guilty Mind’
The internal or mental element of a crime
Sometimes referred to as the blameworthiness
There is a presumption that MR is required.
Types of offences:
All offences fall into 1 of these 4 categories:
1. Specific MR: most serious crimes
2. Basic MR: some serious offences and others
3. Negligence: at common law consists of 1 offence (manslaughter)
- We don’t hold people criminally accountable for negligence that led to someone’s injury
(doesn’t include involuntary manslaughter) – we do give them civil right to sue in tort law
4. Strict Liability: offences that do not require proof of MR; some offences may require a little bit
of MR to be proved - EG: parking offences, health and safety offences
Types of MR to be proved for each type of offence:
TYPE MR
Specifc MR offences Intention
Basic MR offences Recklessness
Negligence Offences A) Gross negligence
B) Simple negligence
Specific MR offences are:
Most really serious offences – EG: Murder, robbery, GBH, burglary
Murder is defined as ‘The unlawful killing of a human being within the Queen’s peace with malice
aforethought’
- HOL v Vickens: words of malice aforethought = intention to kill or cause GBH
Requires proof of intention and ONLY intention for conviction
- But intention can be proved in 2 ways:
1. Directly – direct intention: Means proof of ‘the defendants deliberate aim, object, goal,
purpose’ – Moloney 1985
2. Indirectly – indirect/oblique intention: Defined as not having the deliberate intention to
produce that outcome but having foresight that that outcome will occur if you continue
with what you intended to do. – Woolin 1999
History of the meaning of Intention:
Cases Level of Foresight
Hyam v DPP 1975 - Hyam lived in At the trial, the judge said when summing up to the jury,
a terrace house, she went to a ‘members of the jury if you believe that Mrs Hyam intended to
neighbour’s house and poured kill you must convict her of murder, if you believe she intend to
petrol in the letter box and lit cause GBH you must convict her of murder, and members of
newspaper, the house caught fire, the jury that if you believe beyond doubt that she foresaw
2 people died and she was charged
that murder or GBH was likely to occur you must convict her
with murder.
Hyam appealed conviction and of murder’
argued a misdirection by judge Until this case only the first 2 statements would have been
because it’s not the law for said – adding foresight was a development of the common
foresight to reflect intention. law
HOL upheld a conviction where oblique intention was defined
in terms of foresight of a ‘high probability’.
Maloney 1985 –Maloney had Argued that it wasn’t his intention to kill his stepfather
gone to stepfather’s birthday party Convicted of murder and appealed
, and had too much to drink, the HOL reduced conviction to manslaughter; Lord Bridge said,
stepfather owned revolvers so they ‘murder is a crime of intent and the jury should be left to use its good
decided to play a game and see sense to decide whether D acted with intent without any judicial
who could draw the revolver the prompting as to its meaning’ – Hyam judge was wrong in saying
fastest – Maloney’s gun was loaded must, should have been may because it is up to the jury to
and went and kill his stepfather
decide
D’s foresight of the probability of a consequence does not of
itself amount to intention but may be evidence of it
D could be said to intend death where:
1. death was a natural consequence of his voluntary act, and
2. D foresaw that consequence as being a natural consequence
of his act.
But it is ambiguous - what is or is not a natural consequence,
in that case of shooting at someone?
HOL quashed D’s conviction because it was based on an
incorrect direction that D foreseeing a mere ‘probability’
could amount to an intention. Despite this, however, in
summing up Lord Bridge talked loosely of foresight of a
‘natural consequence’ being sufficient.
Hancock and Shankland 1986: Convicted of murder, reduced on appeal to manslaughter
striking mines drop a concrete Lord Scarman suggested that the natural consequence test
block over the edge of the bridge was too wide (and tainted by Smith 1961) therefore he
and hit a taxi and killed the driver proposed that judge’s direction to juries required a reference
to probability
The greater the probability the more likely it is that D foresaw
the consequence, and
If foreseen – the greater the probability that that
consequence was intended.
Reference made to “over-whelming probability”
BUT should also be a reminder to juries that is a matter of
evidence for them to decide.
Convicted D of murder, following Lord Bridge’s ‘natural
consequences’ formulation. However, conviction quashed on
appeal. The concern of both COA and HOL was that foresight
of a ‘natural consequence’ may go beyond foresight of
something that is certain (or at least virtually certain).
However, again, some of the language used by the Lords
implied that some lower threshold may be acceptable ( EG:
Lord Scarman’s statement that ‘the greater the probability of a
consequence the more likely it is that the consequence was foreseen
and that if that consequence was foreseen the greater the probability
is that the consequence was also intended…’)
Nedrick 1986: similar Hyam – Lord Bridge said in determining intent jury should ask:
Lord Bridge appears in the COA 1. how probable was the consequence which resulted from D’s
decision, similar case facts and act?
conviction of murder, but 2. Did he foresee that consequence?
manslaughter was substituted If he did not appreciate …
by the COA If he did, but thought the risk was only slight….
BUT if the jury are satisfied that D recognized that…. would be
“virtually certain” …. they may infer intent even though he
had no desire to achieve that result.
Convicted D of murder, following direction from the judge
that intention could be found where D foresaw death or injury
as ‘highly probable’. COA quashed conviction and clarified
(Lord Lane CJ) that the jury ‘are not entitled to infer the
necessary intention, unless they feel sure that death or serious
bodily harm was a virtual certainty as a result of the D’s
MR:
‘Guilty Mind’
The internal or mental element of a crime
Sometimes referred to as the blameworthiness
There is a presumption that MR is required.
Types of offences:
All offences fall into 1 of these 4 categories:
1. Specific MR: most serious crimes
2. Basic MR: some serious offences and others
3. Negligence: at common law consists of 1 offence (manslaughter)
- We don’t hold people criminally accountable for negligence that led to someone’s injury
(doesn’t include involuntary manslaughter) – we do give them civil right to sue in tort law
4. Strict Liability: offences that do not require proof of MR; some offences may require a little bit
of MR to be proved - EG: parking offences, health and safety offences
Types of MR to be proved for each type of offence:
TYPE MR
Specifc MR offences Intention
Basic MR offences Recklessness
Negligence Offences A) Gross negligence
B) Simple negligence
Specific MR offences are:
Most really serious offences – EG: Murder, robbery, GBH, burglary
Murder is defined as ‘The unlawful killing of a human being within the Queen’s peace with malice
aforethought’
- HOL v Vickens: words of malice aforethought = intention to kill or cause GBH
Requires proof of intention and ONLY intention for conviction
- But intention can be proved in 2 ways:
1. Directly – direct intention: Means proof of ‘the defendants deliberate aim, object, goal,
purpose’ – Moloney 1985
2. Indirectly – indirect/oblique intention: Defined as not having the deliberate intention to
produce that outcome but having foresight that that outcome will occur if you continue
with what you intended to do. – Woolin 1999
History of the meaning of Intention:
Cases Level of Foresight
Hyam v DPP 1975 - Hyam lived in At the trial, the judge said when summing up to the jury,
a terrace house, she went to a ‘members of the jury if you believe that Mrs Hyam intended to
neighbour’s house and poured kill you must convict her of murder, if you believe she intend to
petrol in the letter box and lit cause GBH you must convict her of murder, and members of
newspaper, the house caught fire, the jury that if you believe beyond doubt that she foresaw
2 people died and she was charged
that murder or GBH was likely to occur you must convict her
with murder.
Hyam appealed conviction and of murder’
argued a misdirection by judge Until this case only the first 2 statements would have been
because it’s not the law for said – adding foresight was a development of the common
foresight to reflect intention. law
HOL upheld a conviction where oblique intention was defined
in terms of foresight of a ‘high probability’.
Maloney 1985 –Maloney had Argued that it wasn’t his intention to kill his stepfather
gone to stepfather’s birthday party Convicted of murder and appealed
, and had too much to drink, the HOL reduced conviction to manslaughter; Lord Bridge said,
stepfather owned revolvers so they ‘murder is a crime of intent and the jury should be left to use its good
decided to play a game and see sense to decide whether D acted with intent without any judicial
who could draw the revolver the prompting as to its meaning’ – Hyam judge was wrong in saying
fastest – Maloney’s gun was loaded must, should have been may because it is up to the jury to
and went and kill his stepfather
decide
D’s foresight of the probability of a consequence does not of
itself amount to intention but may be evidence of it
D could be said to intend death where:
1. death was a natural consequence of his voluntary act, and
2. D foresaw that consequence as being a natural consequence
of his act.
But it is ambiguous - what is or is not a natural consequence,
in that case of shooting at someone?
HOL quashed D’s conviction because it was based on an
incorrect direction that D foreseeing a mere ‘probability’
could amount to an intention. Despite this, however, in
summing up Lord Bridge talked loosely of foresight of a
‘natural consequence’ being sufficient.
Hancock and Shankland 1986: Convicted of murder, reduced on appeal to manslaughter
striking mines drop a concrete Lord Scarman suggested that the natural consequence test
block over the edge of the bridge was too wide (and tainted by Smith 1961) therefore he
and hit a taxi and killed the driver proposed that judge’s direction to juries required a reference
to probability
The greater the probability the more likely it is that D foresaw
the consequence, and
If foreseen – the greater the probability that that
consequence was intended.
Reference made to “over-whelming probability”
BUT should also be a reminder to juries that is a matter of
evidence for them to decide.
Convicted D of murder, following Lord Bridge’s ‘natural
consequences’ formulation. However, conviction quashed on
appeal. The concern of both COA and HOL was that foresight
of a ‘natural consequence’ may go beyond foresight of
something that is certain (or at least virtually certain).
However, again, some of the language used by the Lords
implied that some lower threshold may be acceptable ( EG:
Lord Scarman’s statement that ‘the greater the probability of a
consequence the more likely it is that the consequence was foreseen
and that if that consequence was foreseen the greater the probability
is that the consequence was also intended…’)
Nedrick 1986: similar Hyam – Lord Bridge said in determining intent jury should ask:
Lord Bridge appears in the COA 1. how probable was the consequence which resulted from D’s
decision, similar case facts and act?
conviction of murder, but 2. Did he foresee that consequence?
manslaughter was substituted If he did not appreciate …
by the COA If he did, but thought the risk was only slight….
BUT if the jury are satisfied that D recognized that…. would be
“virtually certain” …. they may infer intent even though he
had no desire to achieve that result.
Convicted D of murder, following direction from the judge
that intention could be found where D foresaw death or injury
as ‘highly probable’. COA quashed conviction and clarified
(Lord Lane CJ) that the jury ‘are not entitled to infer the
necessary intention, unless they feel sure that death or serious
bodily harm was a virtual certainty as a result of the D’s
